Fixerguy's Common Sense

Is there any real difference betwixt the Major Parties?

There’s a reason I’m voting for Bernie Sanders in the next election and will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton or Biden. That reason is that this Navy Veteran has been blatantly lied to for over 35 years by BOTH major political parties and their propoganda arm of main stream media. Also, Bernie is the ONLY candidate in this race who’s NOT owned outright by corporate bribers. I’m done and over it. 2008 was the last campaign that I voted for any major party candidate. The above brings us to the following question and my answer for those who care.

Is there really any difference between the two major parties?

I see the answer to this as necessarily being in two parts because it looks to me, after 35 years of watching, like there is far more in common across party lines amongst ordinary Citizens than either “side” actually has in common with the Party Brass of “their” Party.

Part One:
From a Citizen’s point of view, I honestly can’t see any meaningful difference between the two sets of Party Brass in how they vote (act) on laws or in who those laws benefit.

I’m also incredibly cynical about any claims made by any politician… I have over three decades of good cause for that mistrust.

Here’s what I do differently when I think about who I’m voting for:

I reflexively refuse to take politicians at their word. If a politician tells me that “the grass is green” I’m going to go outside and have a look at my lawn and my neighbors’ lawns.
If a politician claims to “support” something I’m headed straight for a Google search and then to that politicians’ Vote Record on bills which address that issue at sites like VoteSmart.org or MapLight.org . I’ll also look up who is donating to them at PublicCitizen.org and then go see what ProPublica.org and Sunlightfoundation.com has to say about it all. Often I find that if there’s something hinky in the law there’s a multinational corporation or the Koch Bros behind it. The Monsanto Protection Act is a prime example of this. In 2008/11 Monsanto “contributed” ~$180,000 to Senator Roy Blunt. Then their lawyers “helped” him write 2012 HR 933 SECT 735 which directed the Secretary of Agriculture to issue, on request, to any farmer, a “waiver” to override any state law, local law, or court decision which prohibited the growing of GMOs. Note carefully that this power by fiat is a direct contravention of the Separation of Power demanded by our Constitution. Also, since no Amendment was Ratified to make it legal, this act of passage is also (per Section 3 of the 14th Amendment) insurrection or rebellion against the United States Constitution by Bribed Public Officials. All of which means that 18 USC 201 for Bribery of Public Officials applies as well. These Facts and Laws were most carefully ignored by Congress and Obama in passing and signing into law this treason against Our Constitution.

Here’s the problem from a Citizen’s perspective:

Politicians, their advisors, and their corporate bribers actively study and use techniques like False Conflation, Evasion, Obfuscation, Lying By Statistics, and plain old Bald Faced Lies to to “shift” public policy and opinion in favor of their corporate and wealthy bribers.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
Virtually our entire mainstream “news” media (> 85%) is owned by just 5 multinational corporations which purposely silence or “spin” stories which might expose this pattern of deceit and obfuscation for what it is.

These “news” outlets purposely show protesters like Occupy in the worst possible light.

As an example:
I watched this utterly scurrilous brand of “reporting” happen during the early days of one protest movement. I’d call it lying, but I’ll let you look it over and come to your own conclusion. http://qr.ae/fqaUj

The various “news” media also flat refuse to report most of the stories which can’t be spun; like these:

Corporate Media Sources on Syrian Crisis Tied to Defense and Intelligence Industries
The debate of whether or not America should militarily intervene in Syria was widely covered by corporate American news outlets for several weeks in August and September 2013. This public discourse took place in major news outlets including CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Bloomberg, and the Washington Post. However, as a reported by the Public Accountability Initiative, individuals who perhaps should not have been speaking on these delicate issues dominated the corporate media’s coverage of the debate.
The interviewed guests on news broadcasts and authors of newspaper articles regarding military intervention in Syria were presented to the American public as diplomats, generals, and experts with unbiased credibility on the issue. However, the majority of these sources were connected to contracting, investment, or consulting firms with a primary focus on defense and intelligence. These ties were left out of the reporting, despite being clear conflicts of interest due to the personal benefits these sources might derive from US military intervention.
The report made a few key points. It identified twenty-two commentators who spoke on military intervention in Syria, all of whom were linked to defense and intelligence contractors, or investment firms. These twenty-two contractors made a total of 111 appearances in newspapers and broadcasts, though only thirteen reports disclosed these links. Some of these “experts” would receive direct financial gain from military intervention, while others had clients who would benefit financially from intervention. Not surprisingly, the majority of the commentators overwhelmingly supported military action in Syria and identified it as an issue of US national security.
By filling the dialogue with individuals holding personal and financial interests in military intervention in Syria, corporate news outlets corrupted public debate over military intervention in the Syria conflict. The corporate media’s failure to disclose such vital information to the American people calls into question its duties. The press has an obligation to truthfully inform the public. They ought to be held accountable for giving individuals with such sizable conflicts of interest the platform to speak on such momentous matters.
Sources:
Gin Armstrong, Whitney Yax, and Kevin Connor, “Conflicts of Interest in the Syria Debate,” Public Accountability Initiative, October 11, 2013, http://public-accountability.org/2013/10/conflicts-of-interest-in-the-syria-debate.
“The Military Industrial Pundits”,Democracy Now!, October 18, 2013,http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/18/the_military_industrial_pundits_conflicts_of.
Student Researchers: Grace Quinn and Anne Connelly (DePauw University)

Faculty Evaluators: Kevin Howley and Jeff McCall (DePauw University)

All in all it seems to me that virtually all of the “issues” identified by politicians and the utterly crooked fashion they’re “reported upon” (or not) all seems very carefully designed to divide Citizens and keep Us so annoyed with each other that We don’t notice, or react appropriately, to the Fact that “our” corporate bribed and owned Congresscritters are actually working against Us, Our Nation, and Our Constitution with the end result that oligarchy and corporate fascisim has replaced our Representative Democratic Republic.

Oh… for those who don’t understand what corporate fascisim is; it’s the use of purchased “law” to protect wealthy corporations from Citizens and competition… like this:

Part Two:
With all of that said I do see a dramatic difference between conservative and liberal Citizens/Voters.

The conservative folks tend to be much more fearful of change and much less open to new experiences which they don’t have a reference point for. They also seem to be much more credulous (no insult intended) about claims made under the guise of an “authority,” whether that be a religious authority, someone with a degree, or a governmental one (like cops). I’ll note here that recent events have shown liberals to enforce even more credulous.

Conservatives also tend to be much more willing to defend the status quo simply because it is the status quo.

I suspect that these differences are mostly sociological in nature because when we look at the distribution of liberal and conservative Citizens we find that the conservative folks tend to be in much more land locked areas which are further away from international ports of entry and college towns; both of which bring massive exposure to new ideas and different ways of doing things.

My suspicion here is that the simple exposure to new ideas is what makes the difference.